It says the technology is similar but doesn’t get into any specific comparison so I don’t exactly read it the same way. This is a very brief and basic article that may not answer all your questions. I’m sure there is more to come.
It does go on to say:
According to the study, the device is more efficient than other existing atmospheric water generators because it uses a “novel rotating operational strategy, in which one module works in the desorption, while the others work in the adsorption simultaneously … to keep the device harvesting water continuously.”
The technology could also be used for purposes ranging from dehumidification to agriculture irrigation to thermal management for electronic devices.
It also mentions similar devices being used in areas such as Sand Branch Texas outside of Dallas. Your question is import and and while I can’t answer it as thoroughly as I’d like I imagine these issues were in consideration when working on this and whether or not they’ll be successful is something we’ll find out soon.
Would be interested in hearing more from the community.